NYT's Editorial Board
Michael Flynn at the White House on Friday. Jim Lo Scalzo/European Pressphoto Agency
From the start, Michael Flynn, a retired army
lieutenant general, was a disturbing choice as President
Trump’s national security adviser. He is a hothead with extremist views in a
critical job that is supposed to build consensus through thoughtful, prudent
decision-making. The choice is now growing more unnerving every day.
A conspiracy theorist who has stoked dangerous fears
about Islam, Mr. Flynn was fired by the Obama administration as head of the
Defense Intelligence Agency and led anti-Hillary Clinton chants of “lock her
up” at the 2016 Republican Convention. He raised eyebrows by cultivating a
mystifyingly cozy relationship with Russia, which the Pentagon considers a
major threat.
Now we have learned that in the weeks
before the inauguration, Mr. Flynn discussed American sanctions on Russia, and
areas of possible cooperation, with Moscow’s ambassador to Washington, Sergey
Kislyak. They spoke a day before President Obama imposed sanctions on Russia
for hacking the Democrats’ computers, probably in an effort to sway the
election in Mr. Trump’s favor.
Mr. Flynn’s underhanded, possibly illegal message was
that the Obama administration was Russia’s adversary, and that would change
under Mr. Trump and that any sanctions could be undone. The result seems to be
that Russia decided not to retaliate with its own sanctions.
We know this not from
Mr. Flynn or the administration, but from accounts first provided to The Washington Post by nine current and
former government officials who had access to reports from American
intelligence and law enforcement agencies that routinely monitor the
communications of Russian diplomats. Bizarrely, Mr. Trump told reporters on Friday afternoon
that he was unaware of the Post report, but would “look into that.”
By consorting with the Kremlin after it interfered in
the election, Mr. Flynn may have violated the Logan Act, which prohibits
citizens from negotiating with foreign governments in disputes involving the
American government. Prosecution seems unlikely since the act, which dates back
to 1799, has never been used. Former American officials may have a point when
they say that aggressive enforcement could discourage sensible foreign contact.
But there is little doubt that Mr. Flynn displayed the kind of bad judgment
that makes him unfit for high office and raises fresh questions about why he
kowtows to President Vladimir Putin of Russia.
The episode has also showed that Mr. Flynn has utter
disregard for the truth. On Wednesday, he twice told The Post “no” when asked
if he discussed sanctions with Mr. Kislyak. But the next day, a spokesman said
Mr. Flynn “couldn’t be certain that the topic never came up.”
Mr. Flynn may also have lied to Vice President Mike
Pence, who last month told CBS News that Mr. Flynn had
not discussed sanctions with Mr. Kislyak, but had an informal chat in which he
extended Christmas wishes. Given his background, shouldn’t Mr. Flynn have known
that someone would be listening to his conversation and that any falsehoods
would be discovered? He was always a flawed choice for national security
adviser and is irreparably damaged now. No one can believe what he
says.
No comments:
Post a Comment